NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp offence:

rwp@1Corinthians:9:20 @{As a Jew} (\hs Ioudaios\). He was a Jew and was not ashamed of it (Acts:18:18; strkjv@21:26|). {Not being myself under the law} (\m n autos hupo nomon\). He was emancipated from the law as a means of salvation, yet he knew how to speak to them because of his former beliefs and life with them (Galatians:4:21|). He knew how to put the gospel to them without compromise and without offence.

rwp@Acts:16:37 @{Unto them} (\pros autous\). The lictors by the jailor. The reply of Paul is a marvel of brevity and energy, almost every word has a separate indictment showing the utter illegality of the whole proceeding. {They have beaten us} (\deirantes hmas\). First aorist active participle of \der\, old verb to flay, to skin, to smite. The _Lex Valeria_ B.C. 509 and the _Lex Poscia_ B.C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows on a Roman citizen. Cicero says, "To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him--parricide." Claudius had "deprived the city of Rhodes of its freedom for having crucified some citizen of Rome" (Rackham). {Publicly} (\dmosii\). This added insult to injury. Common adverb (\hodi\) supplied with adjective, associative instrumental case, opposed to \idii\ or \kat' oikous\, strkjv@Acts:20:20|) {Uncondemned} (\akatakritous\). This same verbal adjective from \kata-krin\ with \a\ privative is used by Paul in strkjv@22:25| and nowhere else in the N.T. Rare in late Greek like \akatagnstos\, but in late _Koin_ (papyri, inscriptions). The meaning is clearly "without being tried." Paul and Silas were not given a chance to make a defence. They were sentenced unheard (25:16|). Even slaves in Roman law had a right to be heard. {Men that are Romans} (\anthrpous Romaious huparchontas\). The praetors did not know, of course, that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens any more than Lysias knew it in strkjv@Acts:22:27|. Paul's claim is not challenged in either instance. It was a capital offence to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. {Have cast us into prison} (\ebalan eis phulakn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball\, old verb, with first aorist ending as often in the _Koin_ (\-an\, not \-on\). This was the climax, treating them as criminals. {And now privily} (\kai nun lathri\). Paul balances their recent conduct with the former. {Nay verily, but} (\ou gar, alla\). No indeed! It is the use of \gar\ so common in answers (\ge+ara\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:23|. \Alla\ gives the sharp alternative. {Themselves} (\autoi\). As a public acknowledgment that they had wronged and mistreated Paul and Silas. Let them come themselves and lead us out (\exagagetsan\, third person plural second aorist active imperative of \exag\). It was a bitter pill to the proud praetors.

rwp@Acts:24:5 @{For we have found} (\heurontes gar\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk\, but without a principal verb in the sentence. Probably we have here only a "summary of the charges against Paul" (Page). {A pestilent fellow} (\loimon\). An old word for pest, plague, pestilence, Paul the pest. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:11| (\loimoi kai limoi\, pestilences and famines) which see. Latin _pestis_. Think of the greatest preacher of the ages being branded a pest by a contemporary hired lawyer. {A mover of insurrections} (\kinounta staseis\). This was an offence against Roman law if it could be proven. "Plotted against at Damascus, plotted against at Jerusalem, expelled from Pisidian Antioch, stoned at Lystra, scourged and imprisoned at Philippi, accused of treason at Thessalonica, haled before the proconsul at Corinth, cause of a serious riot at Ephesus, and now finally of a riot at Jerusalem" (Furneaux). Specious proof could have been produced, but was not. Tertullus went on to other charges with which a Roman court had no concern (instance Gallio in Corinth). {Throughout the world} (\kata tn oikoumenn\). The Roman inhabited earth (\gn\) as in strkjv@17:6|. {A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes} (\prtostatn ts tn Nazrain haireses\). \Prtostats\ is an old word in common use from \prtos\ and \histmi\, a front-rank man, a chief, a champion. Here only in the N.T. This charge is certainly true. About "sect" (\hairesis\) see on ¯5:17|. \Nazraioi\ here only in the plural in the N.T., elsewhere of Jesus (Matthew:2:23; strkjv@26:71; strkjv@Luke:18:37; strkjv@John:18:5,7; strkjv@19:19; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@6:14; strkjv@22:8; strkjv@26:9|). The disciple is not above his Master. There was a sneer in the term as applied to Jesus and here to his followers.

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon eztoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu\ in this sense like \luein ta penth\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poin ti thei\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa thei\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos thei\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS Jude:(verse strkjv@Jude:1:14|) quotes from "Enoch" by name and says that he "prophesied." What he quotes is a combination of various passages in the Book of Enoch as we have it now. It used to be held that part of Enoch was later than Jude, but Charles seems to have disproved that, though the book as we have it has many interpolations. Tertullian wanted to canonise Enoch because of what Jude:says, whereas Chrysostom says that the authenticity of Jude:was doubted because of the use of Enoch. In verse strkjv@Jude:1:9| there seems to be an allusion to the _Assumption of Moses_, another apocryphal book, but it is the use of "prophesied" in verse strkjv@Jude:1:14| about Enoch that gave most offence. It is possible, of course, that Jude:did not attach the full sense to that term.

rwp@Luke:6:1 @{On a sabbath} (\en sabbati\). This is the second sabbath on which Jesus is noted by Luke. The first was strkjv@Luke:4:31-41|. There was another in strkjv@John:5:1-47|. There is Western and Syrian (Byzantine) evidence for a very curious reading here which calls this sabbath "secondfirst" (\deuteroprti\). It is undoubtedly spurious, though Westcott and Hort print it in the margin. A possible explanation is that a scribe wrote "first" (\prti\) on the margin because of the sabbath miracle in strkjv@Luke:6:6-11|. Then another scribe recalled strkjv@Luke:4:31| where a sabbath is mentioned and wrote "second" (\deuteri\) also on the margin. Finally a third scribe combined the two in the word \deuteroprti\ that is not found elsewhere. If it were genuine, we should not know what it means. {Plucked} (\etillon\). Imperfect active. They were plucking as they went on through (\diaporeuesthai\). Whether wheat or barley, we do not know, not our "corn" (maize). {Did eat} (\sthion\). Imperfect again. See on ¯Matthew:12:1f.; strkjv@Mark:2:23f.| for the separate acts in supposed violence of the sabbath laws. {Rubbing them in their hands} (\pschontes tais chersin\). Only in Luke and only here in the N.T. This was one of the chief offences. "According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food all at once" (Plummer). These Pharisees were straining out gnats and swallowing camels! This verb \psch\ is a late one for \psa\, to rub.

rwp@Luke:8:13 @{Which for a while believe} (\hoi pros kairon pisteuousin\). Ostensibly they are sincere and have made a real start in the life of faith. {They fall away} (\aphistantai\). Present middle indicative. They stand off, lose interest, stop coming to church, drop out of sight. It is positively amazing the number of new church members who "stumble" as strkjv@Mark:4:17| has it (\skandalizontai\), do not like the pastor, take offence at something said or done by somebody, object to the appeals for money, feel slighted. The "season of trial" becomes a "season of temptation" (\en kairi peirasmou\) for these superficial, emotional people who have to be periodically rounded up if kept within the fold.

rwp@Mark:2:16 @{The scribes of the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis tn Pharisain\). This is the correct text. Cf. "their scribes" in strkjv@Luke:5:30|. Matthew gave a great reception (\dochn\, strkjv@Luke:5:29|) in his house (Mark:2:15|). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi's invitation, but they imitated his example "and were following Jesus" (\kai kolouthoun auti\). It was a motly crew from the standpoint of these young theologues, scribes of the Pharisees, who were on hand, being invited to pick flaws if they could. It was probably in the long hall of the house where the scribes stood and ridiculed Jesus and the disciples, unless they stood outside, feeling too pious to go into the house of a publican. It was an offence for a Jew to eat with Gentiles as even many of the early Jewish Christians felt (Acts:11:3|) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Corinthians:5:11|).

rwp@Matthew:5:29 @{Causeth thee to stumble} (\skandalizei se\). This is far better than the Authorized Version "_Offend thee_." _Braid Scots_ has it rightly "ensnare ye." It is not the notion of giving offence or provoking, but of setting a trap or snare for one. The substantive (\skandalon\, from \skandalthron\) means the stick in the trap that springs and closes the trap when the animal touches it. Pluck out the eye when it is a snare, cut off the hand, even the right hand. These vivid pictures are not to be taken literally, but powerfully plead for self-mastery. Bengel says: _Non oculum, sed scandalizentem oculum_. It is not mutilating of the body that Christ enjoins, but control of the body against sin. The man who plays with fire will get burnt. Modern surgery finely illustrates the teaching of Jesus. The tonsils, the teeth, the appendix, to go no further, if left diseased, will destroy the whole body. Cut them out in time and the life will be saved. Vincent notes that "the words scandal and slander are both derived from \skandalon\. And Wyc. renders, 'if thy right eye _slander_ thee.'" Certainly slander is a scandal and a stumbling-block, a trap, and a snare.

rwp@Matthew:15:12 @{Were offended} (\eskandalisthsan\). First aorist passive. "Were caused to stumble," "have taken offence" (Moffatt), "have turned against you" (Weymouth), "were shocked" (Goodspeed), "War ill-pleased" (Braid Scots). They took umbrage at the public rebuke and at such a scorpion sting in it all. It cut to the quick because it was true. It showed in the glowering countenances of the Pharisees so plainly that the disciples were uneasy. See on ¯5:29|.

rwp@Matthew:15:27 @{Even the dogs} (\kai ta kunaria\). She took no offence at the implication of being a Gentile dog. The rather she with quick wit took Christ's very word for little dogs (\kunaria\) and deftly turned it to her own advantage, for the little dogs eat of the crumbs (\psichin\, little morsels, diminutive again) that fall from the table of their masters (\kurin\), the children.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Isous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.

rwp@Romans:9:33 @Paul repeats the phrase just used in the whole quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:8:14| with the same idea in "a rock of offence" (\petran skandalou\, "a rock of snare," a rock which the Jews made a cause of stumbling). The rest of the verse is quoted from strkjv@Isaiah:28:16|. However, the Hebrew means "shall not make haste" rather than "shall not be put to shame." In strkjv@1Peter:2:8| we have the same use of these Scriptures about Christ. Either Peter had read Romans or both Paul and Peter had a copy of Christian _Testimonia_ like Cyprian's later.

rwp@Romans:14:20 @{Overthrow not} (\m katalue\). "Destroy not," "do not loosen down" (carrying on the metaphor in \oikodom\, building). {The work of God} (\to ergon tou theou\). The brother for whom Christ died, verse 15|. Perhaps with a side-glance at Esau and his mess of pottage. {But it is evil} (\alla kakon\). Paul changes from the plural \koina\ to the singular \kakon\. {With offence} (\dia proskommatos\). "With a stumbling-block" as in verse 13|. This use of \dia\ (accompaniment) is common. Songs:then it is addressed to the "strong" brother not to cause a stumbling-block by the way he eats and exercises his freedom.